A Journalist’s First-Hand Report on the Corrupt Secrecy of an International Bureaucracy

As a taxpayer, I’m not a big fan of international bureaucracies. They consume a lot of money, pay themselves extravagant (and tax-free!) salaries, and generally promote statist policies.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a prime example. Originally created for benign purposes such as gathering statistics, it now is a bloated bureaucracy pursuing an anti-free market agenda.

But international bureaucracies also have a nasty habit of operating in the shadows and using thuggish behavior to thwart critics. And I have the scars to prove it from my efforts to protect fiscal sovereignty.

A monumental session during the World Health Organization’s (WHO) convention on tobacco control turned into an alarming attack on transparency, accountability and press freedom. …delegates of the member countries of the conference stripped the media of the ability to cover the meeting and escorted public onlookers from the premises. The decision to meet behind closed doors occurred when a discussion began about efforts to decrease tobacco use by increasing the price of tobacco products. Specifically, the convention attendees were discussing the framework for an international tobacco tax. This is one of the most controversial topics for debate in Seoul this week.

This is what is called a “learning moment.” And the journalist clearly recognized both the WHO’s hypocrisy and its troubling policy agenda.

As a reporter covering this meeting, this was not only a frustrating stance, but it raises some serious questions about an organization that for years has operated largely behind the scenes and without the benefit of much public scrutiny. When is the media more necessary than when an unaccountable, shadowy organization that devours millions of tax dollars each year from people across the world debates getting in the business of issuing global taxes? This effort to silence the press is particularly chilling since it is in direct conflict with the U.N. — the WHO’s parent organization—claims to fight to advance “free, independent and pluralistic media” across the world. Apparently, U.N. and WHO leaders believe in media rights in all cases except when the media covers them.

And remember, you’re paying for this thuggish behavior.

If you want to learn more about the underlying issue, I wrote about the WHO’s push for global tobacco taxation back in both May and September.

7 Responses

Dan, who was the middle aged white guy whom you saw recently on the other side of a looking glass? Is he, too, a high priest of “Government Thuggery”?

Does he, too, expect other people to submit to “thuggish behavior” used to support a favorite church? Does he advocate ways and means of grabbing “other people’s money” people such that defending oneself against the robbers is counted as a crime?

Does he, too, bitch and moan sanctimoniously about crime organized under the rubric of statutes and treaties and constitutions?

Every industry and profession prefers a cartel over competition. Not surprisingly, so do politicians.

Alas, it won’t work. As the cartel distortion and inefficiency diverges from reality ever more, the benefit and revolutionary cost of breaking away rises to the point where breakaway nations emerge. It would though be preferable if the cartel does not form in the first place (cartels require intimidation power to survive and politicians do have a monopoly on such power – we give it to them, unfortunately) so that years of sub-optimal performance and the eventual revolutionary cost can be spared.

Dan is being sensible, he understands the need to pick disagreements and fights selectively. Your post moans about Dan’s favorite team, the Bulldogs, but they aren’t the cause of the problem. I imagine they’re just living with it, as are all of us.

If you really meant what you say, then you need to be entirely consistent with what you espouse, which means you’d never drive on a public road, speak with a government employee or union member of any description, buy regulated electricity, fill in a tax return, etc, … But we all live in the system as it currently exists.

Dan’s doing a great job of consistently sticking to libertarian principles, while exposing and arguing against government. Your suggestion that he’s a “high priest of Government Thuggery” therefore seems to make absolutely no sense. Given the obvious constraints we all – including you – live under, won’t you please rationally explain the consistency of your viewpoint to us.